Homosexuality counter argument

[clem456]

InSearchof

With failures in areas of the community such as illiteracy, poverty and poor health, homosexual-ism can ultimately lead to Collectivism. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, “collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism. The least collectivist of these is social democracy”.

Many years ago I stumbled on a bookstore near Harvard Square in Cambridge, Mass. It was called, I believe, The Red Book Store. Aptly called. On entering, there were only two kinds of books I could find for sale. Either those about Marxist socialism, or those advancing homosexual rights. Evidently a pact had been made. The homosexual activists agreed to be in the Communist camp if the Communists would include them under their umbrella.

Can you connect those dots for us with a little more clarity?

 

[clem456]

Homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuality. Catholics have a rational concern, and /or at least should.

Just like the general population, many Catholics are also homophobic, but may, if they can control their emotions, also have a rational concern for homosexuals that transcends their homophobia. I would submit that fear of homosexuality is pretty normal for a straight person. It becomes a problem when when a person can’t admit they’re homophobic, and use religion to beat people up out of fear rather than Christian charity.

 

[Catholic80]

I haven’t read all the posts, since there are 5 pages worth. So, if I am repeating anything that has already been said, I’m sorry.

There are two arguments to a “secular” argument (that I can think of). Either God doesn’t exist (atheism), or God exists, but the attitude of, "who are you to say what is moral or not? reigns.

It’s really hard to define right and wrong in a truly atheistic society. As someone (I don’t know who) once said, “Without God, anything is possible.” Without God, there is no Truth. There can be “facts,” but there is no Truth. Life without God would be utter chaos.

The fact is, biologically, a male and a female are needed for reproduction to carry on the species. Homosexuality goes against nature.
The arguments for homosexuality might be:
1.Maybe it’s natures way of controlling the population.
But this doesn’t really follow nature. One could argue that our free will and ability to control our sexual behavior is nature’s way of controlling how many children we have. And, since overpopulation is a myth and it has been proved that we have plenty of resources for the entire world, how is nature “figuring this out?” Furthermore, homosexuality is more widespread in 1st world countries where there is plenty of space and available resources. If nature was “kicking in” through homosexuality, wouldn’t we see it in impoverished places first?
So, we can conclude, that the homosexual behavior goes against what nature intended.

1. Homosexual behavior can be seen in animals, therefore it’s natural.

But when do we see this behavior in animals? I had 2 little female lovebirds “nest” together. They got quite intimate with each other and acted towards each other as a male and female would do in the wild. …in the wild. My two poor birds were held in captivity under unnatural conditions. Birds don’t naturally live in cages, only two in a flock, and only two female together. They were lonely, in essence, and became mates in whatever way they knew how because while their instincts were kicking in, their natural environment was disturbed and so their behavior became disturbed. I also had a larger parrot who chose me as his “mate”. That’s not natural either! In a sense, it was a means of survival for them. Even animals don’t do well with loneliness.

Now, there have been many reported cases of homosexual behavior in the wild. That doesn’t make it “normal” or good. Animals and insects have also eaten their young and engaged in cannibalism. This behavior is not “perfectly natural” in humans. Just because an animal does it does NOT make it okay.

I got that last part from this website that you might want to check out on arguments against homosexuality. narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

1. *It’s no one else’s business what I do in my bedroom. *
   In some ways, this is true. We are given a free will, and in a secular society, I really can’t think of a good counter argument. But, they are harming themselves. If someone had an eating disorder, or alcoholism, or taking illegal drugs, they are harming themselves. We don’t permit these things legally because they cause harm, even if it’s behind closed doors. A family can force their daughter to undergo treatment for her eating disorder because it is harmful to her.
   Homosexuals harm themselves both physically and emotionally. (I’ll leave spiritually out here since this is a “secular” argument) Physically, males almost always have fissures and bleeding from their “act.” AIDS and other STDs are by far more widespread and a dramatically higher percentage of the homosexual male community than of heterosexual males (you might want to research the actual statistic. But here is an AIDS website, that ironically seems to be promoting homosexuality, but shows the deadly statistics) thebody.com/content/58618/hiv-among-gay-and-bisexual-men.html
   We do not know the extended consequences of this widespread disease… if it will eventually become airborn, or transmitted through saliva, or how it will affect us in the long run. But, AIDS and STDs are a serious health risk to society. They harm themselves by spreading it from person to person, even if it’s their “private choice,” but they also potentially pose a threat to society. (If they are in an accident and are bleeding) or if the disease becomes so widespread it begins to mutate uncontrollably. So their behavior does affect society. They haven’t proven that they are acting in a safe manner as more than half, I believe, of the infected AIDS population in the U.S. are homosexuals. This is significant if homosexuals are only 1% of the population…
   We can’t import certain kinds of cheese or other food items because of health risks… and those are nothing compared to the threat of AIDS and other diseases.

These are what I can think up off the top of my head, but there are plenty more secular arguments against.

If you really want to plan out an argument, I was taught in school to argue the opposite of my opinion… to find out everything I can and “fight” for the opposite viewpoint. Then begin to find counterarguments to support my viewpoint.

 

[sw85]

There is so much nonsense going on in this thread right now. I’m making this post so I remember to come back to it tomorrow, when I have time to address it all.

 

[BobCatholic]

If everybody went into religious life that demands celibacy, becoming preists, monks, nuns, etc. the human race would also be extinct within one generation. By your own logic, you just deemed the Church immoral.

Note, I’m a Christian and opposed to homosexuality. I am also opposed to poor logic.

I also am opposed to poor logic.

Do you seriously believe, as a Christian, that God calls EVERYONE into religious life or the priesthood? The answer is obviously NO. And having EVERYONE go into religious life/priesthood regardless of what God wants is just as rebellious against God as sinners. And such rebellion is SIN and EVIL.

So your logic does not follow.

 

[BobCatholic]

If everyone became celibate and continent the human race would be gone in a similar time frame…

True.

Celibacy is good only in the context of religious life or priesthood. I dealt with that in my previous post (see above).

If God calls someone to marry and they do not marry, they are not doing God’s will and that is not a good thing. Not everyone is called to marriage.

And yeah, if everyone were continent, that also goes against God’s will to be fruitful and multiply.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

True.

Celibacy is good only in the context of religious life or priesthood. I dealt with that in my previous post (see above).

If God calls someone to marry and they do not marry, they are not doing God’s will and that is not a good thing. Not everyone is called to marriage.

And yeah, if everyone were continent, that also goes against God’s will to be fruitful and multiply.

That’s not what the Bible or Catholic teaching says.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

clem

**Can you connect those dots for us with a little more clarity? **

Both communism and homosexuality are against the natural law, and therefore make great bedfellows! Naturally, their volumes of propaganda belong in the same bookstore.

 

[BobCatholic]

That’s not what the Bible or Catholic teaching says.

So when God says “be fruitful and multiply” that was just a decorative set of words in the BIble?

It is God’s will that 100% of the people be celibate or continent? I’d say “NO!”

 

[clem456]

clem

**Can you connect those dots for us with a little more clarity? **

Both communism and homosexuality are against the natural law, and therefore make great bedfellows! Naturally, their volumes of propaganda belong in the same bookstore.

This statement you made was where I was looking for cause and effect:
““With failures in areas of the community such as illiteracy, poverty and poor health, homosexual-ism can ultimately lead to Collectivism””

 

[Portrait]

I recently got into a friendly debate with someone about homosexuality and he beat me to a pulp. I made a deal with him I said that his argument was well rehearsed he agreed saying that he had plenty of people strengthen it. I need to come up with a strong counter argument that is purely secular the bible, catechism and anything related to the two are off limits. I could really use some help

Dear NP151,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

A jolly good non-religious argument, dear friend, is an appeal to the natural order of things. Explain that certain organs have an undeniable compatibility with those of someone of the opposite gender and that their finality is to be found in pairing.

If we consider the eyeball, for example, and did not know what it was for but could learn everything regarding its biology, we could ascertain what its function was. It is nearly spherical, moves around in its socket and has an aperture which seems to expand and contract in response to light. Moreover, it has a light sensitive inner lining connected to nerves which go to the brain etc. Thus the thing certainly has something to do with receiving light and it seems adjustable to produce a clear image - it has something to do with gathering light, converting it into signals - so perhaps it is for the purpose of vision or something very related.

The structure of the eye informs us as to what it is for. Thus the eye is evidently not the proper tool for catching a rugby ball, that is the hands whose structure is designed for grasping things. The obvious point here is that physical structure indicates purpose or telos. Simply put, dear friend, the male body is sexually made for the female body and sperm are by their design oriented towards the ovum the way that eye is oriented toward light. Clearly, then, homosexual deviant acts or any other sexual acts, other than vaginal coitus, cannot fulfill the purpose ‘written’ into our physical form.

Natural law reasoning is an excellent basis for discussing moral principles which does not require religious profession and is therefore accessible to the non-Christian in a way that purely biblical/Church teaching is not.

The natural law, dear friend, also corresponds by reason to the inner conscience of man and ‘rings true’ irrespective of age, sex, language or culture, for it is timeless and universal as it is written in the minds, hearts and even the bodies of men and women. Thus men have a basic ethical intuition that certain sorts of behaviours are wrong because they are unnatural, for example they perceive intuitively that carnal copulation is only permissible with another human and not an animal. By parity of reasoning the same applies to homosexual aberrant acts and so the natural sex partner of a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner of a woman is a man. Thus people have a corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about beastiality, *vis-a-vis *that it is wrong just because it is unnatural. Whilst it is true that some men try very hard to supress the voice of conscience within to justify homosexual perversion and an alternative lifestyle, they cannot escape entirely this witness within themselves which rises up and convicts them of their unnatural sexual deviancy.

God bless and I hope that is of some help, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Charlemagne_II]

clem

**This statement you made was where I was looking for cause and effect:
““With failures in areas of the community such as illiteracy, poverty and poor health, homosexual-ism can ultimately lead to Collectivism”” **

If you go back to my original post, the part you have put in quotes was a quote from somebody else (InSearchof, I think). I was just pointing out that homosexualism and communism (a form of collectivism) are natural bedfellows because they both espouse violation of the natural law.

As for whether one causes the other, I doubt it. There are certainly homosexual capitalists!

Nobody would say homosexuality leads to capitalism. Nor would they say homosexuality and capitalism are natural bedfellows because they both violate the natural law (with the caveat that some capitalists have proven themselves adept at cruel exploitation of others, which *is *against the natural law).

 

[RCK78]

I must say that the rules of this debate make it nearly impossible to give an adequate response. Asking someone to explain a moral issue without using moral sources is like asking someone to explain a chemical reaction without using an scientific sources. I would say unless you’re able to make a moral argument on a moral subject then no argument you can come up with will suffice. Just as no secular argument the other person can make will compel you.

 

[clem456]

clem

**This statement you made was where I was looking for cause and effect:
““With failures in areas of the community such as illiteracy, poverty and poor health, homosexual-ism can ultimately lead to Collectivism”” **

If you go back to my original post, the part you have put in quotes was a quote from somebody else (InSearchof, I think). I was just pointing out that homosexualism and communism (a form of collectivism) are natural bedfellows because they both espouse violation of the natural law.

As for whether one causes the other, I doubt it. There are certainly homosexual capitalists!

Nobody would say homosexuality leads to capitalism. Nor would they say homosexuality and capitalism are natural bedfellows because they both violate the natural law (with the caveat that some capitalists have proven themselves adept at cruel exploitation of others, which *is *against the natural law).

M:blush:y apologies, didn’t realize the bold was another passage quoted.

 

[sw85]

I recently got into a friendly debate with someone about homosexuality and he beat me to a pulp. I made a deal with him I said that his argument was well rehearsed he agreed saying that he had plenty of people strengthen it. I need to come up with a strong counter argument that is purely secular the bible, catechism and anything related to the two are off limits. I could really use some help

It is probably imprudent (and almost certainly a waste of time) to be debating atheists. And it is certainly unfair for them to expect you to conduct any dialogue on their terms alone. These kinds of issues are properly secondary, so if you don’t share first principles, you’re not going to get anywhere, anyway.

That said, check out the natural law argument against sodomy. I make some references here. This is more for your own benefit than his.

Only tangentially relevant, but you might also be interested in “The Gay Invention” by R. V. Young. In short, “homosexuality” as an identity/orientation was invented a century ago. No one anywhere in the history of the world recognized anything like a “homo/hetero” distinction before that. The distinction they used was essentially “horndog/girly man.”

How about just shaking the dust off your sandals and walk away?

I echo (echo, echo, echo…) this. We don’t need to be trying to convert atheists; if all the evidence and philosophical treatments of the last 2,000 years won’t convince them, nothing will. What we need to be doing is protecting our souls and our children’s souls from them, since they have succeeded in sloganizing atheism, and slogans and peer pressure are extraordinarily hard forces for anyone to resist.

Health. Address it as a public health concern. Smoking is bad for health-- and so is sodomy.

There is a grain of wisdom in this (i.e., sodomy is a disease vector), but I would be uncomfortable with making this argument for the simple reason that it embraces the consequentialist logic of our enemies.

I have seen two male animals bond, two male dogs and there were bitches around too so it wasn’t hormones causing them to mount everything.

It was most likely scent confusion. I have seen a male dog mount a female, then himself be mounted by a number of other male dogs because he now smells like a female and they can’t tell the difference. At any rate, this is irrelevant to the ethical question at hand.

When one got hit by a car and died the other dog stayed by the body until it died.

I have seen this, too. But what is it you’re suggesting? That the dog felt romantic attraction to the one who was hit by a car?

1. Nobody claimed that homosexuality is normal aka the norm. Obviously heterosexuality is the norm. Homosexuality however, like heterosexuality, is natural.

What we mean is “normative,” not “the norm.”

Homosexual anal sex is no more or less risky than heterosexual anal sex.

For heterosexuals it’s rather the exception than the rule, though, no?

Procreation argument? Really? Should we outlaw the mating of infertiles too? Ah yes, their numbers are so insignificant that it we shouldn’t bother. Funny how that doesn’t go for homosexuals who are a mere 10% of the population.

Please read up on natural law before presuming to speak about it.

Smoking also affects people who aren’t smoking whereas sodomy doesn’t.

I am just about positive you don’t believe this. First of all, I don’t get to choose not to live in a culture that’s been vulgarized by sodomy (and are we denying that it has been?). Second, as witnessed by the increasingly frequent incidents involving gays or gay-sex enthusiasts vandalizing churches, how they behave and what society says about how they behave very clearly does affect Catholics.

But the reason, I think, that we have so much trouble convincing others of the immorality of Gay Liberation is that we are don’t seem to be as concerned by the vast sexual promiscuity of heterosexuals.

Thus, it seems to people that we are singling the gays out, just because we are prejudiced against people who aren’t like us, along the lines of whites hating blacks or Mexicans.

Notice how many states pass laws and constitutional amendments against gay marriage, but NEVER even propose laws to forbid shacking up, dating sex, or quick and easy divorce among heterosexuals.

We need to be WHOLE CATHOLICS, not partial Catholics. We need to not let ourselves me manipulated by politicos who just want to get into office for reasons of ambitions for power and/or greed.

There’s a lot wrong in here. Let’s take it one at a time:

1. Sodomy is in fact worse than fornication, which means it’s not improper to treat it as such. Obviously, a more perfected evil is worse than a less perfected one, so it makes sense to combat the former.
2. If people are offended by the above fact, that’s because they lack perspective on the issue, i.e., because they believe equality is the highest good and hypocrisy the rankest evil, i.e., because they are our committed enemies and hate everything we believe in.
3. To be clear, no one is “passing laws against gay marriage.” There is no such thing as gay marriage. What has been passed is recognition of the fact that there is no such thing as gay marriage and never will be if the states have anything to say about it. Because gay marriage an ontological error, just as surely as “homosexual” is an etymological one. Which means the fight against gay marriage has largely been defensive, i.e., we’re trying to make sure things don’t get worse. It’s not hypocrisy (or whatever) to recognize that we’ve lost the previous battles and are at least trying to keep things from getting much worse.
4. Not everything that’s bad needs to be outlawed by the government. Until fairly recently in history, we were doing a fine job of policing against fornication by clearly marking out offending men as cads never to be married and women as sluts unworthy of it. I’ll remind everyone that these taboos were dismantled in part with the complicity of Catholics and other Christians who poo-poo’d “judging” others and so on, and who still do it to this day. Not long ago I articulated a defense of the double standard on the grounds that women’s sexual behavior is far easier to police than men’s (they being naturally “wired for chastity” in some respects); I was immediately blasted by every Catholic present with a long list of extremely uncharitable and basically meaningless adjectives, many of which ended in “ist.” That Catholics regard these kinds of responses as meaningful is exactly the reason we have lost the culture war – i.e., because we surrendered it.

What do the words “homosexualist” and “homosexism” mean?

Hmm. I actually kind of like the word “homosexualist,” but when I think of when I hear it is “a person who is ideologically committed to the belief that the construct of ‘homosexuality’ is objectively real.”

So in this sense, all the people who identify as “homosexuals” are homosexualists, but so are many of their “hetero” enthusiasts and hangers-on.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If humans started out gay and stayed that way, there would be no procreation.Homosexuality is flawed if it stands alone for the procreation of families and the human race. Essentially, gay people need heterosexual people for there existence.

I don’t think that argument works because the issue is not that all people are homosexual. Some people (of various sexualities) have no wish to pass on their genes to future generations. It also seems that we are not in danger of the human race going extinct. Nor does the population growth trend suggest we are heading in that direction. It’s not necessary for all humans to reproduce to assure future generations. And the heterosexual ancestry doesn’t imply an obligation for descendants to also be heterosexual.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Just like the general population, many Catholics are also homophobic, but may, if they can control their emotions, also have a rational concern for homosexuals that transcends their homophobia. I would submit that fear of homosexuality is pretty normal for a straight person. It becomes a problem when when a person can’t admit they’re homophobic, and use religion to beat people up out of fear rather than Christian charity.

hatred is not fear. I don’t hate homosexuals, but I’m sure those that do, are not afraid of them. The KKK is not described as Negrophobic. HItler was not Semitophobic, he was anti-Semitic.

I hate the term homophobic, it does not mean what people think it means.

To go off on a tangent, I also hate the term Anti-Semitic, because it is used way to often, and it does not mean what people think it means. Anti-Zionists are not Anti-Semitic.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Huh?

Murder is a destructive sin, but it is not approved by society (except through abortion).
Sodomy is a destructive sin, but it is being increasingly approved by society.

According to Aquinas, Fornication is not against the natural law, because man is still following his nature by performing intercourse with a woman.

His example was masturbation was a far-worse sin than fornication, because it was against the natural law. As would sodomy, be worse against the natural law.

The Sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance are those that God has found especially bad, because he did call out for vengeance in the Bible.

These four sins are the Murder of an Innocent, Sodomy, Defrauding a worker of his wages, and oppression of the poor.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

So when God says “be fruitful and multiply” that was just a decorative set of words in the BIble?

It is God’s will that 100% of the people be celibate or continent? I’d say “NO!”

That OT, NT is more like

Only tangentially relevant, but you might also be interested in “The Gay Invention” by R. V. Young. In short, “homosexuality” as an identity/orientation was invented a century ago. No one anywhere in the history of the world recognized anything like a “homo/hetero” distinction before that. The distinction they used was essentially “horndog/girly man.”

It was most likely scent confusion. I have seen a male dog mount a female, then himself be mounted by a number of other male dogs because he now smells like a female and they can’t tell the difference. At any rate, this is irrelevant to the ethical question at hand.

I have seen this, too. But what is it you’re suggesting? That the dog felt romantic attraction to the one who was hit by a car?

For heterosexuals it’s rather the exception than the rule, though, no?

I am just about positive you don’t believe this. First of all, I don’t get to choose not to live in a culture that’s been vulgarized by sodomy (and are we denying that it has been?). Second, as witnessed by the increasingly frequent incidents involving gays or gay-sex enthusiasts vandalizing churches, how they behave and what society says about how they behave very clearly does affect Catholics.

Hmm. I actually kind of like the word “homosexualist,” but when I think of when I hear it is “a person who is ideologically committed to the belief that the construct of ‘homosexuality’ is objectively real.”

So in this sense, all the people who identify as “homosexuals” are homosexualists, but so are many of their “hetero” enthusiasts and hangers-on.

I don’t recall that in the Middle Ages, the sodomite was seen as the anti-friend, the destroyer of that which is good.

I never saw either with bitches.

I don’t know what I am suggesting, I am merely pointing out an observation.

It isn’t the rule that homosexuals engage in anal sex, more like oral sex.

Are you directly affected in any health ways like second hand smoke? I was speaking about sodomy in itself not some perfidious, iniquitous queers

By that definition someone who prays to not be gay is a homosexualist.

 

[CopticChristian]

I recently got into a friendly debate with someone about homosexuality and he beat me to a pulp. I made a deal with him I said that his argument was well rehearsed he agreed saying that he had plenty of people strengthen it. I need to come up with a strong counter argument that is purely secular the bible, catechism and anything related to the two are off limits. I could really use some help

What is it you debated? What is the question?